A Systematic Review of Autonomous Emergency Braking System: Impact Factor, Technology, and Performance Evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to track the research progress of AEB-related technologies, this paper makes a systematic analysis and research on the impact factors, key technologies, and effect evaluation of AEB. First, the paper deeply analyzes the three levels of factors affecting the performance of AEB, which are vehicle factors, driver factors, and environmental factors. Second, the paper deeply studies the technical status of the three subsystems of environment perception, decision-making, and control execution. Particularly, the performance of Mazda, Honda, NHTSA, Berkeley, and Seungwuk Moon are compared and analyzed based on MATLAB. Third, the paper summarizes the current AEB virtual test methods, closed field test methods, and its test sites. Three classic evaluation methods in the world, including the AEB test evaluation standards of ENCAP, IIHS, and i-Vista are analyzed. Finally, the paper prospects the specific research directions, including the protection of vulnerable road users, target detection method, collision avoidance strategy, complex scenarios application, and application of emerging technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it